Sonotone Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1127 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SONOTONE CORPORATION 1127
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activities among them, or membership
in IN rERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging, or
discriminating in any other manner, in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as permitted in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Thomas Frederick immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL make the estate of Clarence Leeper whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
labor organization.
NEl[EC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
SONOTONE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RCi-
4579. September 11, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis Moore, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
100 NLRB No. 170.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The UE urges that its contract executed on March 9, 1951, and
effective until April 30, 1953, is a bar to the instant proceeding. The
Petitioner and the Council contend that the contract is no bar on
the grounds that the recognition clause of the contract covers guards
within the meaning of the Act and that by the inclusion of such
guards the contractual unit differs materially from the unit previously
certified by the Board.
The record shows that the UE- was certified by the Board on July
7, 1950, as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees following an election based
on the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No.
2-RC-1897,2 which involved the same parties with the exception of
the Council.
The unit in Case No. 2-RC-1897 was described in accordance with
the agreement of the parties. All parties- specifically stipulated that
the employees in question, classified as guard-watchmen, were not
guards within the meaning of the Act, and thus, that they be included
in the unit. In accordance with the stipulation, the guard-watchmen
participated in the election and upon,the "results of such election the
UE was certified by the Board.
In the American Dyewood 3 case the Board recently decided that
a contract voluntarily entered into by the parties, which included
guards in a production and maintenance unit otherwise clearly ap-
propriate, was not removed as a bar. We believe the principle of
that case also applies where, as here , the contractual unit was estab-
lished pursuant to and not in defiance of a prior Board certification,
despite the fact that such certification was of a unit which included
certain employees who, had their status been litigated, would have
been excluded by the Board. Here, as in the Amerieann Dyewood
case, we specifically do not find that guards may be appropriately in-
cluded in a production and maintenance unit. As stated above, in
Case No. 2-RC-1897, the guard-watchmen were included in the unit
on the basis of the parties' stipulation that they were not guards within
the meaning of the Act. However, as the evidence introduced into
, Local 428 , United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, hereinafter
referred to as the UE, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
Allied Trades Council, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Council , was permitted to inter-
vene on a proper showing of interest.
2 Not published in printed volumes of Board decisions.
3 American . Dyewood Company, 99 NLRB 7& (Board Member Houston dissenting).
RAVENNA ARSENAL, INC. 1129
the instant record shows that these employees are, in fact, guards
within the meaning of the Act, the Board, of its own motion, will
amend its certification in Case No. 2-RC-1897 to exclude guard-
watchmen 4 Accordingly, we find that the current contract between
the Employer and the UE operates as a bar to an immediate de-
termination of representatives. We shall therefore dismiss the instant
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
4 The inclusion of guard -watchmen in the prior proceeding is not binding on the Board
for the reason that, in that proceeding , the parties agreed to the composition of the unit
and no evidence was taken as to the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of these
employees . Gulf Refining Company, 64 NLRB 304.
RAVENNA ARSENAL, INC. and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN,
PETITIONER
FIRESTONE RUBBER COMPANY ( RAVENNA ARSENAL , INC.) and BROTIIER-
HOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENOINEMEN , PETITIONER . Cases
Nos. 8-RC-1636 and 8-RC-1651. September 11, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Charles A. Fleming, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
I At the hearing, the Intervenor , United Steelworkers of America, CIO, moved to dismiss
the petition in Case No. 8-RC-1636 on the ground that the local chartered by the Peti-
tioner in that case , Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , herein called the Trainmen, for
the purpose of representing the employees sought herein , has not complied with the filing
requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act. The fact of compliance by a labor
organization which is required to comply is a matter for administrative determination and
is not litigable by the parties . Moreover , the Board is administratively satisfied that the
Trainmen and its local are in compliance . See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844;
Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917 . Cf. N. L . R. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Com-
pany, 341 U. S. 322.
100 NLRB No. 168.